What did Jesus mean when he said "If you love me you will keep my commandments?"

[bugkiller]

There was no 000BC, 0BC, or 0AD, but rather it went directly from 1 BC to 1 AD. Furthermore, most scholars place his birth between 7 and 2 BC.



They perhaps did not know the means of how the Messiah would Redeem us, but they nevertheless had faith that they would be redeemed.

The worthless stuff that is argued about here is ridiculous.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Other than "follow him" (and he is the perfect model of obedience we are to follow) I don't see anything that isn't in the OT. Repent (Ezekiel 18:30), let your light shine (since we have no light outside of God, there are plenty of OT verses telling us to allow His light/Lamp to shine and lead the way), be reconciled (Proverbs 6:16-19, Zeph. 3:9), don't lust... don't make oaths... resist evil... these are all repeats from the Tanach (OT). The words Yeshua spoke were the Father's words... thus the Father's commandments.

I don't think that is what following Jesus is. They weren't known as Jews in Antioch. They were known as Christians.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

A simple word search disproves that.



I'm not the one teaching that following Jesus means to break the Law that he followed.



Feel free to provide a quote.

I don't think he's hung up on the word saved. Indeed it does appear in the OT. I don't think it's related to salvation that comes only through Jesus.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

No.

Most people in the OT did not see the faith promise, that is specific to Abraham and that is why Abraham is the father of all who have faith, because Abraham saw something special because of his faith. Using Abraham who saw something no one else did and using that to show that all the people in the OT were saved through faith like Abraham is a huge presumption.

Faith wasn't even mentioned by Moses as part of the law, which is why Jesus said that the Pharisee's and teachers missed the larger, spiritual point of the law.

Actually, the individual Patriarchs who had faith were listed out in the NT, but most people did not.

That is one reason that God now writes His law on our hearts and does not have people teaching other people, but the Holy Spirit guiding us in truth.

Abraham wasn't saved until after the cross.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Jesus was speaking about him being the bread of life, not about giving his own commands in disagreement with the Father.​

Jesus wasn't disagreeing with the Father in Jn 15:10 either. Yet Jesus takes credit for commandments not given by the Father. Jesus doesn't tell us to keep the commandments of His Father either. Jesus said He them and ask us to keep something else. The verse couldn't be more clear.

In Matthew 19:3, Jesus was asked whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. While Moses did permit divorce because of the hardness of our hearts, he did not permit it for any reason. Some Jews at the time were actually teaching that it was permissible for a man to divorce his wife if she ruined his meal, so this is the type of thing that they were asking about and what Jesus was speaking against. If you think that Jesus did not teach the same thing Moses taught, then you should think that he sinned in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and therefore could not be our Savior.

Did John lie in Jn 1:17? or I Jn 3:23?

Laws are not needed for those who are already living in accordance with what they require, but for those who are not.

In 1 John 2:6, it associates walking in the same way that Jesus walked with following his commandments, and he walked in obedience to the Mosaic Law. I see no reason to think that His Word was not in perfect accordance with what was already commanded.

John never extended an invitation to Judaism.​

We are commanded to love our neighbor in Leviticus 19:18, so there was nothing brand new about that command. His Word is a set of rules and they are rules for how he wants us to love him and our neighbor. In John 14:23-24, Jesus said that if we love him, then we will obey his teachings and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so his words did not depart from those of the Father. Likewise, John 7:16 says that he came only to do the Father's will. The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Romans 8:4-7, it says that those who have a carnal mind refuse to submit to God's Law in contrast with walking in the Spirit. So "the Father's commandments" are also synonymous with "walking in the Spirit" unless you think that the Father was acting against His Spirit when he gave the Law of Moses or that the Spirit is in disagreement with the Father about which commands we should follow. The purpose of obeying the Mosaic Law is to grow in a relationship with God.

Jesus didn't teach or bring the law per Jn 1:17.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

The problem is that the Law does not require all Gentiles to become circumcised and certainly not for the purpose of becoming saved. While God did require all Jews to become circumcised, not even they were required to do so in order to become saved. So if God did not require that, then it is therefore a man-made requirement that was the burden that they were rejecting, not God's Law.

To participate in the covenant given at Sinai, a male was required to be circumcised.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law in contrast with abolishing it, so it doesn't make any sense to interpret fulfilling the Law as essentially the same thing. There is nothing in the Bible that speaks about fulfilling the Law is that sense, but rather the Bible speaks about God's Law as being eternal. Rather, to fulfill the Law means "to cause God's will as made known in the Law to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS 2c), which is precisely what Jesus immediately proceeded to do six times throughout the rest of Matthew 5. In Galatians 5:14, it says that anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law, which refers to obeying it as it should be, not to something unique that only Jesus did to fulfill a contract and do away with the Law. In Galatians 6:2, it says that bearing one another's burdens fulfils the Law of Christ, which again refers to obeying it as it should be, not to doing away with it. In Romans 15:18-19, it says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, which referred to causing the Gentiles to fully obey it in word and in deed, not to doing away with it.

In 1 Peter 1:13-16, it says that we are to have a holy conduct because God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus, such as Leviticus 11:44-45, where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct in accordance with His holiness, so the only way to do away with these instructions is to first do away with God's eternal holiness. The God that we serve has said that it is an abomination for His followers to eat pork, so do so at your own risk.

You wish to fuss over words. Jesus abolished the old covenant when He said -

This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. LK 22:20

bugkiller